Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREY YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading treatment ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The relevant provisions of Articles 59 and 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 25).

  Insofar as the applicant complained of the refusal of the Regional Court to appoint his father, who was not a lawyer, as his lay defender, the Court notes that in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 39, 19 February 2009) it has already found that the ability to be represented by relatives provided by domestic law was complementary to the right to legal assistance and did not as such attract the protection of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, § 29, Series A no. 237-B, and Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The mere appointment of a legal-aid lawyer does not in itself settle the issue of compliance with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c), and the competent national authorities may be required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene if a failure by a legal-aid lawyer to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; and Iglin, cited above, § 67).

• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  Where the defendants are detained, the conditions of their detention, transport, catering and other similar arrangements are the relevant factors to consider in this respect (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 71 and 89, Series A no. 146; Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 81; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 222, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in managing their proceedings, but to consider whether the method chosen by them has led in a given case to results which are compatible with the Convention (see for established authority Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The Court reiterates that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 of that Article and are thus to be examined together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The very fact of unjustified restriction of access of a detained suspect to a lawyer may prejudice the rights of the defence, even where no incriminating statements were obtained as a result (see for example Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  Similar factual submissions also gave rise to the finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Court's judgment in the case of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 105-113, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  In the light of its jurisprudence (see for example Melnik v. Ukraine, cited above, § 103 and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, §§ 51-52, 12 January 2012), the Court finds that the lack of personal space afforded to the applicant in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs in and of itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 59335/00

  MAKHFI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The Court reiterates that the States" duty under Article 6 § 3 (b) to ensure the accused's right to mount a defence in criminal proceedings includes an obligation to organise the proceedings in such a way so as not to prejudice his power to concentrate and apply mental dexterity in defending his position (see Makhfi v. France, no. 59335/00, §§ 40-41, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  VASILIY IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  [ENG]
• EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 29835/96

  C.G.P. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Untersuchungshaft Timoschenkos "rechtswidrig"
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 13448/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  DANILOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 3018/17

  ABAKUMOV v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications

  Rn. 19 As regards the complaint by Mr O. Shepelev under Article 3 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with requisite medical assistance in detention and the complaint by Mr Y. Neymak under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he had not had a fair hearing in the criminal case against him, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose an appearance of violations of the Convention (in respect of Mr O. Shepelev, compare Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 79-80, 13 March 2014, and Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17

  SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

  Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, 13 March 2014; Odessa SIZO (2003-2005) and Kyiv SIZO (2005);.
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  The relevant international and domestic materials concerning conditions of detention and transportation can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 56-61, 25 October 2007), Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009), and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 63727/11, §§ 71-73, 13 March 2014).

• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 31928/15

  KONOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE

  The relevant reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment ("the CPT") concerning conditions of transportation of prisoners in Ukraine can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 59-61, 25 October 2007) and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 63727/11, §§ 71-73, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05

  [ENG]

  Further, lacking objective evidence of the ill-treatment complained of and the comments of the domestic authorities on the substance of the applicant's relevant complaints, the Court, mindful of its subsidiary role under the Convention, is unable to take up the role of a first-instance tribunal and reach any conclusion as to the reliability of the applicant's contentions as to his purported ill-treatment (see, e.g., Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 85, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 33 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  63727/11.
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 19103/11

  BURLAKOV AND LYSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Similar conditions of transport and detention have given rise to findings of violations of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of the Court's judgments against Ukraine (see, for example, Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, §§ 98-103, 13 March 2014, and Yaroshovets and others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As the applicants did not notify the competent domestic authorities of any respective concerns, the Court, without the benefit of the comments from these authorities, has no basis on which to establish that any such misconduct might have taken place (see, in particular, Vinokurov v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.) no. 2937/04, 16/10/2007 and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 85, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 68786/14

  KOMAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  63727/11, §§ 100-03,.
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The relevant extracts from some earlier CPT reports (following visits to Ukraine in 1998, 2000 and 2002) concerning the conditions of transportation of detainees in Ukraine are quoted, in particular, in the Court's judgment in the case of Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 63727/11, §§ 71-73, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 34515/04

  KULIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37794/14

  NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 56540/14

  SUSLOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 78484/11

  STRYUKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 63782/11

  ROMANOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 11773/08

  TKACHEV v. UKRAINE (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 71660/11

  BARYSHEVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 28253/11

  TYMCHENKO v. UKRAINE